During the quarterly review meeting, the operations lead proposed: According to company policy, any region where customer density reaches the service threshold and the cost of covering remote areas is higher than the cost of local service should establish a local service outlet; data show that customer density in this region has reached the threshold, therefore this region should establish a service outlet. Which of the following evaluations of this argument is most accurate?

Answer: C

• AThe argument is invalid because "customer density" in the major premise refers to contracted customer density, while in the minor premise it refers to total customer density, which is a fallacy of equivocation.✗ Incorrect. The term "customer density" is used consistently in both premises; no equivocation occurs here. This option mistakes the real flaw (unverified conditions) for an ambiguity, reflecting a misunderstanding that equivocation is a catch-all diagnosis.
• BThe argument is invalid because company policy is merely an internal viewpoint, not a verified objective fact, and viewpoints cannot serve as a major premise.✗ Incorrect. In a syllogism, the major premise can be a rule or principle; whether it is reasonable is a separate question. This option conflates the justification of the principle with the validity of the inference. Even if the policy were applicable, the argument would still be invalid.
• CThe argument is invalid because the major premise uses "and" to set two joint conditions, but the minor premise only confirms one of them, which is insufficient to necessarily derive the conclusion.✓ Correct. The principle is a conjunctive condition: both conjuncts must be true for the conjunction to hold. Proving only one component (density) and then asserting the conclusion exemplifies the mistake of cherry-picking favorable facts. The conclusion cannot be necessarily derived.
• DThe argument is valid because reaching the customer density threshold is the most critical condition, and the other conditions are merely factors to consider during implementation.✗ Incorrect. This reflects the misunderstanding that an important condition can replace all conditions. The major premise lists two necessary conditions with "and"; lacking any one of them makes the conclusion not necessarily entailed. There is no "discount" for key conditions.